david rigby

Asusming you are the plan sponsor, your duty is to the plan, and to ensure that the day-to-day administrative functions are performed according to the terms of the plan, and the requirements of the law. I'm not an attorney, but it seems that if you have reasonable expectation that a participant may commit fraud, it is appropriate that the plan sponsor "do the right thing". The plan's ERISA counsel will guide you.

But if you can adjust the next wire transfer easily, that might also be an acceptable solution. (Might depend on when that next transfer is.) Written documentation of your actions is advisable.

What happened to the voluntary contributions while in the DB plan? Tracked with individual accounts? Credited with interest? If so, how was that determined? BTW, how long did this feature exist? What was the pattern of usage? HCE’s only?

Probably some similar discussion in earlier threads. Might also help to refer to tax treaty. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/

ERISA section 403 is 29 CFR section 1103. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/1103.html (No guarantee that this site is up to date.)

Some prior discussion: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...t=0entry78262

Having spousal consent requirements would take the teeth out of the"requirement" now wouldn't it? The MRD is not eligible for rollover. What do you mean "is not taking his/her MRD"? The plan does not have to request the participant's permission. The term "required" seems to fill the same role as a "force-out".

Look for the reg here: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html

There may be other prior discussions about this. Try the Search feature. For example: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=21594 The usual starting point is to determine why; that is, did someone (who? plan sponsor, trustee, beneficiary, etc) do or say something that is the heart of the problem? The plan's legal counsel will advise whether the recieiving financial institution has any culpability; typically, death will have a bearing on whether an account is "frozen". Your message implies the possibility of fraud. Again, the plan's legal counsel will help determine that. You may also need better controls on timely notification. The trustee will probably have some suggestions in that area.

No. My comment was an observation that Sal is held in high regard by many who contribute to these Message Boards. No disrespect intended to any.

IRS Reg. 1.411(a)-5. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html Section (b) gives the periods of service that can be excluded. Subsection (3), including (3)(v), indicate that your PS plan would not be a "predecessor plan" and the service prior to establishment of DB plan can be ignored for the DB plan vesting service. But read carefully, subsection (3)(ii). Of course, there might be some very good reasons to be more generous.

Finally an end to one of the longest, and silliest, pi**ing contests yet seen on these Message Boards!

Is this an HCE? Ifso, could the ADP test results have limited the EE's contribution anyway? 402(g) limit could also be relevant.

Might depend on what the plan says. Is there any plan provision that could limit the EE to 5%, directly or indirectly? How long did this "incorrect" deduction go on?

How about having the sponsor say "Oops", reimburse the trust, and go on to more important things?

In most cases, it is advisable to avoid trying to do everything with one plan. A qualified plan's primary purpose is to accumulate retirement income. (Please no lectures about other "purposes.") To provide death benefits, the most advantageous vehicle is usually group life insurance. The answer may be different if there is the need (do not confuse "need" with "want") for permanent, rather than term, insurance. Perhaps the parties can accomplish there goal thru group life, rather than try to confuse the qualified plan's purpose.

How old are the parties? What is the purpose of of the parties in establishing this (or any) qualified plan? How much cash can they put into a qualified plan? Will the ER contribution be maintained for several years or is it temporary?

Perhaps we can suggest that Sal write some of the regs.

Upon further reflection, make sure you are not dealing with a situation where the spouse is really the second spouse. If the spouse (defined at the time benefits begin) dies, most plans will not permit a subsequent spouse to assume the survivor role under a J&S form of payment.

It is interesting that some people, in the interest of relieving suffering, suggest that the feeding tube be removed. Starvation is very painful, and is a prime example of suffering.

My mistake. I forgot about the EGTRRA change to the referenced Code section. 25 % is correct.

Don't forget about 415 limits.

Do you make that determination with reference to individual results, or to the underlying plan fomula?

What does the plan say to do with forfeitures? As you state, already deducted once. Do you have a problem with IRC 404(a)(3)(A)(i)? (My hunch is that if the answer is "yes", then you may have a problem in prior years.) BTW, for that mental block about 25%, see EGTRRA, and the plan amendment which adopted appropriate provisions.

BTW, a PEP could be designed (I think) with reference to final average comp, rather than total comp as described in Mike's post of 10/20/03.